I Don't Understand You Subjective Guys

[anetode]

One important consideration that hasn't been explicitly mentioned is the inherent value of skepticism as a personal discipline in judgement of both subjective and objective data. While there's a lot of back and forth about the dangers of extreme subjectivism/objectivism, too few head-fiers acknowledge that there are strengths and weaknesses in both approaches. There's a grandiosity surrounding the sub/ob debate that shrouds the reality that they are simply categories to be used in sorting data. They shouldn't be proselytized as all-or-nothing propositions.

I am skeptical. Objective measurement data may lie or mask or be too far off to be of any use, but it can be judged through repeatability and subsequent verification or dismissal. I like that. Subjective opinions are useless unless you know more about the source than a few online posts. It is a weakness of forums that people who would politely discuss and agree to disagree in real life conversation somehow wind up locked in a circle of opposition. So I judge subjective opinions harshly while balancing a respect for the person's point-of-view.

When studying both subl/ob data I am pleased to learn a lot from even trainwrecked threads. I may not learn much about acoustics or electronics, but that is made up for by observing human behavior and being otherwise entertained.

 

[bigshot]

I don't know that simply agreeing to disagree gets people very far. It's one thing in religion or philosophy where there may be no hard and fast rules, but in questions like "If I buy a $300 RCA cable, will my system sound better?" taking the polite road and allowing that all opinions are equal doesn't do anyone any favors,

I think the most important thing to making smart choices is to focus on the process of decision making... How can we as hifi nuts identify problem spots in our systems and address them? How do scientific tests apply in a real world sense? What is the relative importance of different issues? What can we actually hear?

These sorts of questions lead to information that people can actually use. Focusing on double blind testing procedures, obscure inaudible scientific data, vague anecdotal subjective impressions, and sympathetic magic as it relates to sound leads nowhere.

The focus should e on effective ways to achieve the perfect sound we all want.

 

[anetode]

Well, there's always the infamous guide on ten things not to do.

The advice I think most valuable would be which headphone or set of speakers to get. All other decisions should be based on whether you want to modify how the headphone sounds either through physical alterations or eq or added distortion confused_face.

For the discerning audiophile you have the added considerations of lifestyle decor. If you'd rather have your listening area resemble an early 20th century laboratory, why not get plentiful tube gear alongside old-school monstrous eq racks. Or if your room smells of rich mahogany it's kind of a big deal to get a solid wood rack with tastefully luxurious components from many exotic brands adorned by sorbothane. For slick modern furniture there are artful speakers with included amplifiers of the like of B&O to minimize the visual baggage of audiophile componentry. Finally for the kids on the budget / dumpster divers there are unique random finds, anything goes in odd combinations of old and new - all borrowed, found, stolen or purchased second-hand.

If you know what you're doing you can get quality sound from any of the above arrangements.

 

[kwkarth]

Irrelevant? You've got to be kidding! Yes indeed, just because we're already steeped in ignorance, let's throw the baby out with the rest of the bath water while we're at it. Wow. This line of reasoning belongs in the JIR!

You are missing the point.  Consider basic systems engineering.  The listeners head is a black box.  The input to that black box is all of the stimuli received.  That is ALL that can be affecting the black box.  Inside the black box can be all the magical deciphering you want to consider - but the input stays the same.  The audio signal being transmitted to the black box is a time-varying 3-dimensional differential pressure that strikes the ear drum.  If you know of some other input being delivered to the listener, please enlighten me.  If you want to consider each ear separately, fine - each ear is presented with a different differential pressure gradient.  

My point is that it was stated that you can't measure everything, therefore you can't know by measurement whether two systems are actually identical.  I claim that if the two systems produce exactly the same time-varying 3-dimensional differential pressure, then they are producing exactly the same sound.  All the nonsense about "complex music is different than sine waves" really boils down to air pressure - that is what sound is.  

The question you should be asking yourself is whether the time-varying differential pressure can be captured in a way that is at least as accurate as the human ear.

I think I hear what you're saying BB, but I'm not sure I was able to adequately communicate back. What I think you're failing to consider is the multi-channel aspect of the input. The left and right input to the system (one's head). The left and right channels are not independent of one another. They're highly interdependent. They interact with one another both inside and outside the black box. This interaction, externally, does not have an objective, definitive measurement. This is something we do not yet know how to measure in terms of definitive and objective qualification. Make sense?

 

[kwkarth]

One more thing I forgot to mention. An example of a needed measurement that does not yet exist...

What is the objective measure of "imaging?" I can easily hear when one product images better than another, whether it be a speaker, headphone, DAC, or what have you, but how do I measure that objectivly?

 

[kwkarth]

I'm still catching up on reading this thread from page 16, but another clarifying aspect I want to mention, which will agree with some of you and dissagree with others...

In the digital domain, things are very cut and dried. The numbers coming out of the end of a cable are either there or not, and their timing of arrival is either on time or not, resulting on the faithful transmission of data from end to end or not.

In the analog domain is where things are still I'll defined. Back to the imaging example... A piece of gear either preserves the imaging of the original performance or not, assuming it was captured in the first place. (Microphone placement, channel seperation, mixing of multiple channels so as not to produce subtle comb filtering aberrations or other phase related phenomenae is well understood by any competent recording engineer, how to measure and preserve this information throughout the end to end recording chain right to the listener's ears, is NOT understood in terms of an objective measure.

 

[sfoclt]

Quote:

I don't know that simply agreeing to disagree gets people very far. It's one thing in religion or philosophy where there may be no hard and fast rules...

 
Just to nitpick:  philosophy has "hard and fast" rules, based on logic.  Proof in a philosophical disagreement is every bit as rigorous as in other reasoned disciplines.  

 

[gnarlsagan]

Quote:

If you can point me in a direction where I can see the testing methodology, I would be happy to.  There is a real quick check that anyone can make to determine if their methodology is flawed.  Did they conduct a measurement systems analysis prior to attempting a double blind test.  If the answer is no, throw the results in the trash.

 
I'm not at all questioning your knowledge in this area, but I'm genuinely curious as to how you would propose conducting a measurement systems analysis when the measurement systems are two people's ears. How would it differ from the double blind test itself? 
 
 
 

It shouldn't come as a surprise that some people make up things to support their argument. They claim that they did elaborate tests, when they actually just base their points on casual listening. They resort to ad hominem attacks instead of arguing on point. They throw argumentative grenades into threads to get the thread closed when it's not going their way.
Why would anyone care so much about wires, for Pete's sake!
Here is my point... It isn't about wires, and it isn't about music, it isn't even about sound. It's about the ego boost and bragging rights that come from owning things other people don't or can't own. When someone comes along and doesn't buy into the value of owning a status symbol for the sake of owning a status symbol, they take it as a personal attack. They can't accept clear scientific proof that it doesn't make a difference because it's about ego, not sound.
The question of this thread was "Why do subjectivists insist on buying things like overpriced wires and go to such lengths to defend their choice?" i've tried to answer that. I think it's pertinent.

 

THANK YOU. I've never used all caps on this forum until now. It's obvious that there are people who don't want these conversations to happen, even though there are plenty of open-minded people (like me 

) who glean a lot of useful information from threads like these. I don't care who's right, I just want to know more stuff about audio. Glad you guys got the thread back on track. Thanks!
 
And to the people who don't think this is a useful topic of discussion: don't enter the discussion if that's how you feel! Make a new thread titled "Talking about stuff is dumb."

 

[bigshot]

Well, there's always the infamous guide on ten things not to doFor the discerning audiophile you have the added considerations of lifestyle decor.

There was a Swedish guy here a few years ago who wrapped all of his equipment up in tinfoil. His stereo looked like it was ready to throw on the barbecue!

 

[bigshot]

One more thing I forgot to mention. An example of a needed measurement that does not yet exist...
What is the objective measure of "imaging?"

Imaging is a function of room acoustics, frequency response and distortion. Interaction between channels is crosstalk.

 

[bigshot]

Just to nitpick:  philosophy has "hard and fast" rules, based on logic.  Proof in a philosophical disagreement is every bit as rigorous as in other reasoned disciplines.  

That depends on the philosophy, doesn't it?

 

[Magick Man]

I don't know that simply agreeing to disagree gets people very far. It's one thing in religion or philosophy where there may be no hard and fast rules, but in questions like "If I buy a $300 RCA cable, will my system sound better?" taking the polite road and allowing that all opinions are equal doesn't do anyone any favors,

You can be polite. Ex. "There is no proof that cables make an audible difference, as long as they're made to spec and aren't defective". Being abusive will only cause the thread to be derailed and will likely lead to the offender being banned. Getting angry and hurling insults doesn't help anything.

FWIW, all the info about the efficacy of boutique cables is already quite prominent, a five second Google search readily pulls up volumes of information. If a shopper hasn't already done that, then that's their failing.

 

[bigshot]

How about "Cables don't make a lick of difference... Get thee to a Radio Shack!"

 

[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

I think I hear what you're saying BB, but I'm not sure I was able to adequately communicate back. What I think you're failing to consider is the multi-channel aspect of the input. The left and right input to the system (one's head). The left and right channels are not independent of one another. They're highly interdependent. They interact with one another both inside and outside the black box. This interaction, externally, does not have an objective, definitive measurement. This is something we do not yet know how to measure in terms of definitive and objective qualification. Make sense?

 
We're not talking about the same thing.  If we are talking about evaluating the actual music (ie, do I like this music, or does this system sound like a different system that I heard yesterday), then you are correct, the listener must be considered and therefore all the things you say are true.  However, I am referring *only* to the concept of duplicating the input to the listener (eg when doing an A/B test between two USB cables) and trying to decide if there really is a difference.  All I'm saying is that *if* the input to the listener is the same (ie the pressure differential at his *two* eardrums) then the sound MUST be identical.  If the pressure differential at his two eardrums was identical, and the listener still heard a difference, then the difference was either due to a stimuli not associated with the sound (eg eyesight) or the difference was invented within the listeners head (eg a preconceived bias) or one or both of the listeners ear drums changed their characteristics between the A and B.  There cannot be a difference in what we define to be "sound" if the input striking the *two* eardrums is unchanged, just as their cannot be a change to the sound if you repeat exactly the sound from a single system and all other variables are held constant.

 

[kwkarth]

One more thing I forgot to mention. An example of a needed measurement that does not yet exist...
What is the objective measure of "imaging?"

Imaging is a function of room acoustics, frequency response and distortion. Interaction between channels is crosstalk.

No, it's not, but if it were, what would be the objective measure (figure of merit) of imaging?